Tough Love

I do want to thank those at Palm/HP that emailed me with the words of encouragement. Unfortunately, each and every one of them that did, have left the webOS and Enyo teams.

I wrote that article because I feared HP wouldn’t do a single one of them. And, as I feared, HP pretty much failed to do each and every one. We’ve written off webOS, and there’s evidence HP may do the same when their fiscal year ends. However, they are still hiring (and, as an apparent response to our last reporting, set up a domain for it too). Still, it’s clearly questionable what direction webOS will take.

First, HP said that old webOS devices can’t run Open webOS 1.0, because they aren’t able to handle a Linux 3.3 kernel. Problem is, many have argued that HP’s chip vendors (namely, Qualcomm) do maintain closed-source builds of that code, which HP won’t release.

While it’s understandable that HP can’t open-source such code, the Android TouchPad debacle underscores this, releasing closed binaries are still an option. That would allow for an Open webOS 1.0 Community Edition, similar to the HP TouchPad version that HP is building because it, in their words “care about the community”.

It doesn’t help that HP’s communications are vary varied.

That’s not the problem, though…

Really though, this shouldn’t have happened. HP’s webOS team should know that the easiest way to ignite interest in Open webOS, would be to enable $50 devices to take advantage of the platform. All those old Palm Pixi and Pre units qualify.

Even if carrier issues would not permit HP to release such a build, HP could offer a version that would convert these devices into Airplane Mode developer/enthusiast units. Instant traction that would get consumers asking (other) manufacturers to build Open webOS devices.

Even if HP is correct that it would not have been possible to use Pre/Pixi first-generation hardware with Linux 3.3… then they shouldn’t have made Open webOS 1.0 require Linux 3.3. The Linux 2.6 kernel works just fine. Ask Android 4.0.

Qt: The Next Big Uh-oh

HP decided to embrace Qt. That’s not a bad move, at least, I said to myself at the time. After all, it’s the one thing Nokia won’t gut.

Only then Nokia gutted it. I’ll save my comment on Nokia’s blunder for a little later.

It does, however, leave me resigned to the fact that HP is now in an even worse position. There is no major company spearheading Qt.

HP may now be in the same exact position that Palm was in when it launched webOS 1.0, supporting code that is well-designed, but obsolete. HP now has three choices, dump Qt, fork Qt, or buy Qt.

I’m not sure if there are better options for HP, really. Dumping Qt would be costly in development time. A new WebKit branch would have to be massaged into webOS all over again. Forking Qt would mean massive development resources to maintain their own branch, see “dumping Qt” five seconds ago.

Buying Qt from Nokia would be the easiest solution, and give HP powerful cross-platform development tools to form the basis for a true rival to Apple and Android. I have no confidence that HP is bright enough to do this one. None. Meg, if you’re listening call me, seriously. Barring that phone call, I doubt HP will buy Qt from Nokia, and blow the last good chance for HP to have its own end-to-end solution.

Boy, could it use one, too. With Surface, Nexus (and Motorola), as well as iPhone leaving HP on a sinking island with no OS vendor that isn’t getting into the hardware business themselves. Qt would give HP the ability to build apps on its own codebase, perfect for webOS to grow into a desktop, mobile, and embedded OS. Only HP won’t do it. I’d love to be wrong.

If HP can’t do it, I’ll do it myself

Instead of doing what would gain instant traction, HP says they’re targeting “future” devices. Excuse me, but with what traction? What manufacturers? What developers? Nobody has committed to Open webOS. Nobody. And, if there was someone out there willing to do so, we would have heard about it by now.

Even companies clearly unhappy by the direction Motorola-Google-Android are taking, are not embracing Open webOS. Why? Again, consumers doubt the platform. We’re now in another painful Catch-22 that the webOS team has built for themselves. They are blocking their own solution to the traction problems that Open webOS will face.

This is a bit personal for me. If you’re a strong follower of my work, you’d know that Intel pulled the rug out from under me, as I was building a MeeGo gadget. That hurt. I’m a strong supporter of open Linux, but it’s clear to me that big companies, just don’t get how to make it consumer-friendly.

I am resigned to the notion that this is a task I’m going to have to take up myself… and I’m already well under way on that.

Christopher Price is the Founding Editor of PhoneNews.com. Today, he leads the team building Console, Inc. - a new kind of Android™ device. He still likes to pontificate... a lot. You can visit his personal blog at ChristopherPrice.net.

Why would HP buy an open source project (Qt)? Do they want to make money from providing commercial support for it? I doubt, they just want to use it in their products. Qt was and is going to be transfered to an independent non-profit organization, all HP needs to do is to hire a few developers to work on it, other companies will do the same because there are too many software products depending on it. Buying Qt is a really stupid idea for HP.

If HP does not acquire Qt, they have to use LGPL for all Qt releases on mobile. Digia and Nokia refuse to offer a non-LGPL Qt license for mobile. If you’re building a mobile platform (webOS) that can be useful.

The other reason is to ensure team consistency. Much as HP has had to endure with webOS, even an open project that faces corporate layoffs suffers hard. Those team members have to focus on putting food on the table, not advancing Qt. Nobody is using Qt more at this point than HP webOS, at least in terms of core OS component dependencies (RIM would be a close second though with BB10).

Guess we’ll agree to disagree on if buying Qt would be a good step for HP, but it is false to say there aren’t valid reasons for the acquisition.

With Qt in the hands of HP, the company could use Qt as its own form of Cocoa. Much as Cocoa (Yellow Box) was originally designed at NeXT to run across platforms (Mac, Windows, etc).

Qt really is just what Apple originally built Yellow Box to do, now it serves at Apple as Cocoa and CocoaTouch across OS X and iOS exclusively.

My (first) point is that if HP has Qt in its hands, it can use webOS to create a desktop and mobile variants that power _everything_ HP has. Desktops, tablets, printers, laptops. No more dependency on Windows, and a truly unique platform that can run Android apps as well as native webOS apps.

Without holding the master license (my second point), this becomes a lot more difficult. Trust me on this one. If you can have the master license, Qt then becomes something that keeps developers happy (always a good thing considering how many Palm/HP have burned), and ensures that webOS can be a truly viable alternative to Windows that will actually get consumers and companies alike willing to pick up webOS instead of Android, iOS, OS X or Windows.

And that is my case for HP buying Qt… in case it wasn’t clear already.

I agree with your editorial remark & response %100 but they NEED TO FIRE THAT CLUELESS IDIOT CEO Meg ( witless ) Whitman and that board of directors Ray Lane as SOON AS POSSIBLE! Just look at how low HP stocks have fallen thanks to their inept stewardship